Category Archives: Gay Voices

Over at The Public Discourse, Doug Mainwaring has written a fantastic article about the tactics that marriage redefiners increasingly embrace, and how marriage supporters must fight back against substance-lacking intimidation and personal attacks.

Advocates of same-sex marriage have aggressively used the media, political correctness, and manipulation to push their agenda on the American people, Mainwaring wrote. He also explored a relatively unknown far-left 1990 manifesto that outlined tactics for marriage redefiners.

Mainwaring especially stressed that we must not be afraid to act on behalf of the truth of marriage.

Political correctness, Mainwaring wrote, has allowed marriage redefiners to silence and shame those who disagree with them. Political correctness is the left's favorite tool but also their Achilles heel:

No tactic of the powers opposing Judeo-Christian mores has proven more effective than political correctness. Why? Non-adherents are threatened with social isolation and anaclitic depression. Thus, the peer pressure that dominates middle schools, high schools, and college campuses retains all its horrifying power to intimidate American adults, causing multitudes to suppress free inquiry and redirect their behaviors.

[...]

But the processes that have led to the surprising success of the radical left are also its Achilles heel. Consent that is manufactured is not real. Proponents of same-sex marriage haven’t won in the arena of ideas—they have won through manipulation.

The moral high ground the radical left seems to enjoy is extremely fragile, because its popular support has been fabricated. The left’s only hope of retaining this support is to continue to suppress free speech and religion. They cannot risk the proclamation of truth—whether it be the truth of the Gospel, the truth of natural law, or even simple common sense.

But the ground won by the radical left can be regained. If we are as disciplined and focused as the proponents of same-sex marriage, we can not only retake this ground, we can also pave new inroads. We must not despair; we should regroup and prepare to wage the battle in a new and different way.

Mainwaring encouraged marriage supporters to boldly, courageously speak up for the truth. We know we have the truth, he wrote, and we must proclaim this truth in our communities. We have the opportunity to stop the left from controlling the narrative:

The only way to fight the powerful marketing and intimidation behind same-sex marriage is for each of us to bravely stand up in our local communities, confronting the bullying, silencing tactics of out-of-touch judges, legislators, corporate cronies, and media collaborators.

Stand up for social positions that you know in your gut to be true. Don’t allow yourself to be silenced by political correctness. Stand up for marriage. Stand up for life. Stand up for the right of children to be born and to have both a mom and a dad. You have truth on your side. You are right, and they are wrong, so do not be afraid.

Men and women rise up to supplant the career politicians and media types who now dominate the national narrative. We can no longer remain silent. We need solid legislators, journalists, and activists to step up to the plate and start filling positions at every level of government—local, state, and national—and filling the blogosphere, the airwaves, and the opinion pages with authentically pro-life, pro-marriage, and pro-liberty views. We need to wrest the narrative away from the radical left.

Writing in The Atlantic online on Friday, Brandon Ambrosino takes to task the claim that support for traditional marriage means being "anti-gay."

Responding to a piece by Paul Rauschenbush for The Huffington Post, in which Rauschenbusch leveled the anti-gay charge against New York Archbishop Timothy Cardinal Dolan, Ambrosino writes:

... Raushenbush hauled out a familiar argument: “Let's just be very clear here —if you are against marriage equality you are anti-gay. Done.”

As a gay man, I found myself disappointed with this definition—that anyone with any sort of moral reservations about gay marriage is by definition anti-gay. If Raushenbush is right, then that means my parents are anti-gay, many of my religious friends (of all faiths) are anti-gay, the Pope is anti-gay, and—yes, we’ll go here—first-century, Jewish theologian Jesus is anti-gay.

Award-winning gospel recording artist and pastor Donnie McClurkin was uninvited from a Martin Luther King Memorial concert this past weekend in Washington, DC. Why? Local pastors, and McClurkin himself, insist that DC Mayor Vincent Gray heeded the demands of gay rights activists, informing McClurkin the night before the event that he was "not welcomed and uninvited":

Donnie McClurkin, award-winning and internationally celebrated gospel recording artist and Christian minister, has claimed that he was uninvited from a MLK Memorial concert on Saturday in Washington, D.C. because Mayor Vincent C. Gray heeded the demands of gay rights activists who wanted him dropped from the event marking the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington. McClurkin has previously shared that he believes God delivered him from the "sin of homosexuality" and that people with unwanted same-sex attractions can change.

McClurkin, pastor of Perfecting Faith Church in Freeport, N.J., stated in a Socialcam video: "The mayor of D.C. uninvited me from a concert that I was supposed to headline today in the Washington (National) Mall commemorating...this 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Movement. I was asked not to attend although I'm considered the headliner of the concert, and advertisements had been circulated and the churches as well as the community are prepared to come out by the tens of thousands into the Washington Mall (area)."

The New Jersey minister went on to reveal that he had received a phone call while on his way to the airport the night before the event and was told that he was "not welcomed and uninvited," according to promoters who had reportedly received word from Mayor Gray's office.

The Baptist Convention of the District of Columbia and Vicinity have released a statement to the press in response to Mayor Vincent Gray's actions:

Doug Mainwaring, in Public Discourse, dismantles some of the myths by which same-sex marriage advocates seek to generate momentum. He arrives at a compelling conclusion:

Put all this together and it’s evident that there’s no real urgent need for same-sex marriage to be instituted, no great demand for it, and no sea change of conservative support. In fact, the degree of popular support has been fabricated, woven from thin strands of sophistry and fragile threads of emotion. [...]

I am confident that the naked overreach of the media and progressive activists on this issue will invite a voter backlash that will either meet or exceed the same-sex marriage movement’s achievements, leading to a thorough rethinking of Roe v. Wade, no-fault divorce, and our debilitating, anti-family, anti-father welfare state.

Read his whole piece to see what gives him this confidence. It should give us confidence, too.

Doug Mainwaring writes in the Public Discourse that "while religion and tradition have led many to their positions on same-sex marriage, it’s also possible to oppose same-sex marriage based on reason and experience":

“I know in my heart that man is good, that what is right will always eventually triumph, and there is purpose and worth to each and every life.” These words, spoken by Ronald Reagan in 1991, are framed on the wall above my desk. As a gay man, I’ve adopted them as my own, as I’ve entered the national discussion on same-sex marriage.

I wholeheartedly support civil unions for gay and lesbian couples, but I am opposed to same-sex marriage. Because activists have made marriage, rather than civil unions, their goal, I am viewed by many as a self-loathing, traitorous gay. So be it. I prefer to think of myself as a reasoning, intellectually honest human being.

The notion of same-sex marriage is implausible, yet political correctness has made stating the obvious a risky business. Genderless marriage is not marriage at all. It is something else entirely.

Opposition to same-sex marriage is characterized in the media, at best, as clinging to “old-fashioned” religious beliefs and traditions, and at worst, as homophobia and hatred.

I’ve always been careful to avoid using religion or appeals to tradition as I’ve approached this topic. And with good reason: Neither religion nor tradition has played a significant role in forming my stance. But reason and experience certainly have.

The benefits of intact biological families were emphasized on a "Building a Marriage Culture" panel at the National Review Institute's 2013 Summit, "The Future of Conservatism." One of the panelists, Doug Mainwaring, spoke of his personal experience as a gay man who came to realize that his own children need both a mother and a father.

"For a long time I thought, if I could just find the right partner, we could raise my kids together, but it became increasingly apparent to me, even if I found somebody else exactly like me, who loved my kids as much as I do, there would still be a gaping hole in their lives because they need a mom," Mainwaring, co-founder of National Capital Tea Party Patriots, said.

Mainwaring is now living with his ex-wife so they can co-parent their two teenaged sons.

"I don't want to see children being engineered for same-sex couples where there is either a mom missing or a dad missing," Mainwaring explained. "Somebody needs to stand up for the rights and needs of children in an age when the selfishness of adults seems to be trumping those rights."

Mainwaring receives many surprised reactions when he explains that he is both gay and a conservative. Someone asked him once, "You're gay, how can you be a conservative?"

The audience laughed and clapped as he recalled his reply: "You're an adult, you have children, how can you be a liberal?"

Here is a fourth voice -- Jean Marc -- a mayor who is yet another gay voice in France who opposes President Hollande's proposal to legalize gay marriage.

As before, we offer an approximate English translation below, done by one of supporters:

I’ve been living with a (guy) for 20 years. As well, I’m mayor of my village, here in Bergueil… Speaking of the planned law (for gay marriage), I have an unusual position. My view isn’t being heard in the media.

What to say about the LGBT movement?

The LGBT movement that speaks out in the media… Nobody voted for them. No homosexual voted them in. They don’t speak for me. They don’t speak in place of me.

What reasons for your opposition?

As a society we should not encouraging this. It’s not biologically natural. We (gays) do not have the fertility, in the sense of making a baby. We have plenty of other forms of fertility. Artistic, for example, and other forms of fertility. In my case, I feel I’ve connected with my village, and I’ve reinvigorated a village that was dying, fading. I know how to create ties within my community. In summary, the law I advise would be whatever’s best for the child. One must favor what is best for the child. Nobody can deny, I believe, that it’s best for a child to have a mother and a father who love each other as best they can.

As we've written about before, there is a rising chorus of gay voices in France who are expressing opposition to President Hollande's proposal to legalize gay marriage.

Here is a third voice -- Xavier Bongibault.

As before, we offer an approximate English translation below, provided by one of our supporters:

Xavier Bongibault , I'm 21 years old, I'm a homosexual and a business manager.

Do all homosexuals think the same way?People tell us that all homosexuals are for this proposed law, but that's an absolute lie! The majority of Homosexuals could care less about it and have the right like everybody else to have common sense

Most homosexuals make fun of this proposed law, because they had a mom and dad like everyone else. They want it to be that way for all kids.

The reasons for your opposition? I think first and foremost we need to protect the child. In France, marriage and child-rearing are extremely tied together. To oppose this marriage [for all] is equivalent to opposing a drastic change in the nature of child-rearing. I'm involved for the protection of the child.

The other claims?This proposed law is tied to the proposal to legalize gay adoption. But not so fast; it's necessary to take a closer look. We have to keep in mind procreation that's medically assisted as we go into the debate among leadership in January. If we begin with the opening idea that "equality" is sacrosanct, consider this: If two women can have a child, thanks to science, then in the name of equality men must have this too, which brings us to gestation in someone else's womb. So it falls upon the minister for the rights of woman to step in and prohibit prostitution. It's scandalous that a woman would rent out her vagina, so how do we encourage women to rent out their uterus? It strains belief, it doesn't sit well in my head.

Marriage for all?In no way is marriage an institution for love. If it were only love, then based on what do we refuse to recognize the marriage of three people deeply in love with each other? What about a father who loves his daughter? One allows that to suppress equality in the meaning of family, or in the meaning of a couple. So when one suppresses all the genetics of the child, one is then willing to destroy the familial circle, and therefore, to destroy the first venue for the socialization and social cohesion of the child.

As we've written about before, there is a growing chorus of gay people in France who oppose President Hollande's proposal to legalize gay marriage.

Here is a second voice -- Jean Pier -- explaining his views (we also offer an approximate English translation by a French-speaking supporter):

I am Jean-Pier and I'm forty-nine years old.

I am a documentary author for TV and I'm homosexual.

What is your opinion of the proposed law?

The law they're proposing, this marriage for all; I have to take pause. I have to wonder, "who's this law for?" I say to myself, "is it made for homosexuals?" I live in Provence and I work in Paris. I know very few homosexuals who wish to marry beyond the PACS (civil unions) they already have. In fact the number of people in PACS unions in France, couples of the same sex, is minimal. Therefore who's this law for? If it's for the 5,000 people who live in the district of Le Marrais, then it's just a militant act. But behind it all, it must be a question of the child.

Freedom, equality for all?

Me, I'm not part of any political party or any association. For me, the question behind this, the fundamental issue, is the child. Among the responses I've heard, I've had this business of freedom and equality. Then I pose this question: What of the freedom and equality of the child? The child won't have its equality vis-a-vis its friends in school. Its peers may have divorced and blended families, but they have, at least, a father and mother.

What about adopting?

Twenty five years ago -- remember, I'm 49 -- I truly wondered about having a child. Like everyone else, I wanted to have a child; it was a question of transmitting my heritage. But then I realized very quickly that if I were going to have a child that way, it would be for the wrong reasons.

What alternatives?

The desire for a child, for me, is fulfilled. I am a writer and creator. I create stories for children. That's a way to address children and respect them. That's an act of love for them.

Final thoughts?

Finally, when I look at this proposed law, I conclude that it's a law for gays, but not for homosexuals. I do not want to support it.

There is a growing chorus of gay people in France who oppose President Hollande's proposal to legalize gay marriage.

Here is one voice -- Phillipe Arino -- explaining his views (we also offer an approximate English translation below by one of our generous French-speaking supporters):

I am Philippe Ariño, 32 years old, essayist about homosexuality and Spanish teacher.

Your thoughts on "marriage" for all?I oppose this proposed law. I believe it's homophobic. First off, I think society is giving this to homosexuals for the sake of society itself, but it's without meaning.

Even worse, another reason that I think this is homophobic is this: This law encourages homosexual couples to think they can copy and fit in the way heterosexual couples do. It makes them think they have to follow the example of man, woman, and child, without respecting sexual difference. It denies respect to homosexual couples in reality, with regards to their specificity and who they really are. Gay couples do not exist so that they can be procreative; one doesn't recognize that (if one turns these into marriages). Even if you present this to gay couples like it's a gift, it's still denying who they really are.

But then, what about equality of rights?It's not a question of equality. Equality isn't inherently positive. There are bad/wrong equalities. We call that conformism, uniformity. A lack of recognition to the realities of people. The gay activists who treat equality as sacred do not differentiate between equal rights and the equality of identity. Equality of the law, and equality of self-respect or dignity.

Adoption?In my view, all kids need more than just two parents who love each other. They need two biological parents -- mother and father -- who love each other. Nobody is speaking about that condition for the development of the child. It would be a condition where desire and nature are conjoined. Let's say a child knows of its biological parents but knows that its parents do not really love one another. That's a trauma that it will carry like a burden, all its life. When people talk about gay adoptive parents, they talk a great deal about the feeling of the parents toward the child, but they don't speak about the difference of sex which is "crowned" with love. That's central, that will be with one for all one's life. One must know that one had more than just a biological origin -- also, that one came from true desire. And one must know that the two are linked.